Slashdot Mirror
Court Approves TSA Body Scans, But Calls For Public Comment
OverTheGeicoE writes "The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has finally issued a ruling (PDF) on EPIC v. DHS, a lawsuit seeking suspension of the use of body scanners for primary screening pending an independent review that would include a public comment period. According to the summary, the court 'grant[s] the petition for review' but 'due to the obvious need for the TSA to continue its airport security operations without interruption, we remand the rule to the TSA but do not vacate it.' In short, the TSA is required to open up their policy for public comment, but they can continue to use the scanners in the meantime and most likely afterward. This doesn't sound like much of a victory for EPIC or the U.S. public."
I didn't notice, but that's probably because it wasn't on Slashdot. :-)
Seriously, isn't the firehose supposed to be taking care of this? Or do most people blow it off (I'm just as guilty, I spend 99% of my time here either reading the front page articles, commenting on them, or moderating)?
OTOH, now that I think of it, if "last week" was Friday, I think you might be expecting a bit more timeliness than usual for this forum...
These unwelcome intrusions continue because we allow them. If we the people as a group, boycotted air travel, tgis DHS BS would go away. There are two waaaay more effective antiterror methods to use than spying on everyone and fondling people against their wills... first, airlplanes should be constructed to make hijacking physically impossible, (not that hard to do) and we should figure out what it is we as a nation are doing that makes people in other countries want to fscking want to kill us, and stop doing it. It shouldnt be that hard... if we were willing to open our eyes as a nation and see.
Of course they voted this way... why would a federal circuit court do anything that reduces the power of the federal government? These days, representative government is a lie.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
I was in firehose (recent) last night and of the 30 articles I rated, 27 were binspam, 2 were off topic but not spam, and 1 was worthy of a recommend.
I'm beginning to wonder if Slashdot's way of promoting stories doesn't *encourage* spam. While it might not make it to the front page, how many moderator eyeballs does it get before getting removed?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
We're not gonna stop doing it, but we'll now allow you to bitch about it.
This is the judicial equivalent of saying "cry about it."
Please, just wake me up when somebody actually starts killing Senators. I'm done with this.
Why is it considered an obvious need that the TSA continue using these devices? They've cost the U.S. tens of millions of dollars and so far I haven't heard of them actually having stopped any real terrorist, in fact they've just made it even easier for people and TSA employees to steal stuff from fellow travelers.
Have these things stopped any actual terrorism attempt? And if so, was the attempt sophisticated enough that it wouldn't have been noticed otherwise?
I believe this "public comment" period will only serve the vocal minority that opposes the use of body scanners. I count myself among the majority that doesn't care about the "enhanced security" measures. It's unfortunate that this group is so apathetic that we usually don't care enough to complain about the annoying protests and tiresome media coverage.
Unless you voted for Ron Paul, democrat or republican - YOU voted for this.
They are upset by the intrusiveness of body scanning. However, when terrorists bring down another airplane they will readily accept this type of procedure. And they will complain about how the government hasn't done enough to protect them.
Maybe the firehose should get more limelight. I usually actually forget about it. Despite reminding me that if I avoid it, I let others dictate what stories I will read.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
These unwelcome intrusions continue because we allow them.
That's the thing, most people I talk to in the real World actually think that the scanner make them safe - they'd be pissed if they went away or if there were another successful terrorist attack would say, 'SEE! We needed those scanners!!"
Remember, we're in a society that has many many people who think that chiropractic doctors are real, homeopathy works, Satan exists and that by increasing the Debt Ceiling, Government spending will go up.
1) Employing would be criminals
2) Generating larger GDP
3) False sense of security
If the TSA sets up a website for public comments about this screening policy, it'll be the only safe place in the world to put kiddie porn, messages between terrorists or between organized crime groups, etc.
Because you can pretty much guarantee that the government will NEVER READ IT.
I'm not a security expert or anything fancy like that but like that last event the kind folk at TSA might have heard of on September 11th, they did not use bombs.
If you think about it, all you really need is some sort of cutting tool, you can make a shank in the toilet. If you can intimidate passangers on planes with some make shift knives and crash the plane into things, what will the body scanner do to prevent this?
I've been thinking about it and correct me if I'm wrong cause I aint not security expert; except for acting as a psychological deterrant (from using TSA facilities) and making staff laugh at people's genitals, these canners do not actually provide any added security. Unless you mean a falsqe sense of...
At the end of the day, how does this body scanner stop a person that wants to crash a passenger plane? did they just want to "add another layer of security"?
Eventually you have so many layers that the service because unusable...especially if frequent exposure to that service might give you cancer.
Some drug smugglers use submarines, maybe that's the next avenue of terrorist attack? might be worth developing a scanner for that...but I guess naked fish genitals are not as funny.
As many people have pointed out before me, while it *may* be the US government's right to force these measures onto their citizens it *certainly* is my right not to subject myself to this BS. I have not set foot in the USA since these measures have come into effect. I know I'm not the only one. Shame. Seems like the US economy currently could use the money these visitors would bring into the country. Unfortunately the TSA seems to be leading this lunacy by example and other countries are following suit so the list of countries I won't be visiting is growing.
A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees. -- Willam Blake
For security reasons we'll of course need to perform some preliminary screening before the secure area in which the comment box is located.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
A- I notice that the lines seem to be moving a little bit faster. I like that.
B- I assume that the security is a deterrent to at least some terrorist wannabes. (Fire extinguishers do not deter or scare away fires).
C- Privacy? Mandatory showers after PE class in 7th grade, perhaps, inured me to TSA scanners. Since they started scanning, how many instances of humiliation have occurred, and how does the risk compare to use of public urinals?
D- I share the suspicions of wastefulness and lobbies, but the economics may balance between making lines move quickly and making planes less attractive targets. The cost of flying would be higher if fewer people flew because they were afraid, or if planes blew up. I haven't done the economic analysis, but presume someone working for the airlines probably has, and doubt the scanner lobbies are stronger than airline lobbies.
E- If I'm at a significant risk of cancer or something, that could be a deal breaker.
F- Thinking outside the box, couldn't they genetically engineer or breed bees to be attracted to terrorists or explosive odors, and place the hives outside of the airport? Ones with frickin' lasers strapped to their heads? That might more efficiently deter terrorist wannabes (B). http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/13/1925241/Scientists-Breeding-Super-Bees
Gently reply
They surely will as everyone asking for those scanners to be removed must be a terrorist. Because the peaceful people that just want to get from A to B have nothing to hide, right?
So all airports serving DC are in VA and MD. Does any ruling in the DC circuit court affect any of those 3 airports (Dulles, National, or BWI)? (IANAL, obviously)
I may have missed it but is there anywhere on the DHS web site that allows for any sort of comment? Has there ever been? I suspect there are none and never will be. The government wants to control the process as always. Those of us that have to live with this crap here in the US are expected to shut up and just put up with it. In a sane world there would be no US Department of Homeland Security. If the FBI, NSA and the USCS had been talking to each other instead of acting out a mutual circle-jerk the government would never have created it. As it is now we are stuck with it until the end of the republic. God help us! More clods running loose with guns and nothing to do but come up with crap like this.
bob@Osprey:~>
The trouble is, at some point something has to become a check on the power of the representatives at any given time.
History teaches us that some principles are too precious to entrust to any representative government subject to the immediate political pressures of the day. We typically enshrine those principles in some sort of constitution or bill of rights, which is placed above the administration for the time being and beyond their power to overrule without going back to the people as a whole for their explicit consent to change the rules.
Some other system, independent of the way the administration of the day is brought to power, is required to intervene when that administration crosses a line they are not empowered to cross. In the US, as I understand it, that "other system" is supposed to be the judiciary, ultimately via the Supreme Court.
Which brings me neatly to my question: is it possible/appropriate under the US system to appeal such a ruling to a higher court, until you reach someone who could potentially rule that regardless of any need the TSA might feel to continue as they are they may not in fact do so because it violates the US Constitution?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Something about them "inviting me to take a drink from the firehose" makes me uneasy.
who regularly travel I always choose the best airline service, http://phongvegiare.vn
I'm more afraid of the TSA than I am of Terrorists.
I'd rather die a free man than fly as a slave.
trying to cover all the points that need to be addressed
1 we need to have an objective read on exactly how much radiation is used during the scans (even if its a range due to scanning kids verses scanning an NFL Linebacker)
2 the problem of stored pictures (that these things are capable of storing any images is a problem)
3 false positives and false negatives (these things are not even close to perfect and will miss some things and pickup other things)
4 TSA agents getting "happy" over either the images or the post "issue" strip search (or in the case of stored images keeping images to get "happy" later)
5 the whole issue of this being 99.99999% theater when other measures are even better and more effective (like sealing the cockpit door and having armed agents on the plane)
6 "stuff" going missing during the check procedure (an agent deciding to E-Bay items grabbed from the bins DURING HIS SHIFT!!!)
7 parts of The Protocol the even the worst "StormTrooper" would have shot his commanding officer over being told to do
8 confusion over what The Protocol is ( scanning not scanning kids separating kids from guardians having Medical Devices ripped from people ect)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
It violates our rights because there is no practical alternative. Bus and train are much slower. If they had an intrusive and non-intrusive flight choice, then it would be fair.
The non-intrusive flight would carry the known risk, in signature, of being shot down quickly by the Air Force if there were problems. Give us choice!
Table-ized A.I.
I don't mean breaking them, but making them pretty much impossible to run for the DHS due to public outcry.
Here's my thinking: Figure out how to turn the relatively harmless dosage into something really scary looking.
Imagine the reaction if a few people's clothes started to emit smoke or catch fire in the middle of one of the scanners. Granted, the first reaction might be an arrest because the TSA thinks you're carrying explosives, but once that's been cleared out of the way, and half a dozen others have experienced the same thing around the country, I suspect the media will whip up such a shit storm about how these scanners are setting passengers' clothes on fire, that the scanners will be permanently banned.
We will add you to a list of dissidents and you will receive super-enhanced screening.
it makes the tsa's job more miserable and never under estimate getting something changed because the people that do it are made miserable.
The problem is, it doesn't violate the constitution. I'll give a brief rundown of some of the problems of challenging the constitutionality of TSA. I'm breaking my rule of no more than 1/10th of an hour (6 minutes is a standard billing unit), but I'm only saying it once. I will not respond to any post even good questions since every time I say what the state of the law is people act like I am personally responsible for the American legal system. They think I and the law are one in the same. We aren't.
I will cover three major issues. Consent doctrine, improper method, and fundamental right.
Consent:
You have consented to be searched including a pat down. You have waived your 4th Amendment rights in this specific situation, specific time, and specific manner. Consent must be given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Voluntarily means you bought your ticket of your own free will, or in other words, you voluntarily put yourself in the position to be searched. Private actors, your employer, don't have to meet this standard because they don't have to follow the 4th Amendment. Knowingly and intelligently just means you recognize that you may be searched and know what the search may entail. These are all the disclaimers that you click check boxes for or sign off on. It must be noted that an argument that you didn't realize just how invasive it would be is a improper method argument not consent.
Your main problem with attacking consent is that you cannot attack it in a vacuum. That is, attack consent in relation to TSA and you attack all consent laws based upon the voluntary, knowingly, and intelligently standard. There is no TSA specific consent doctrine. You have two ways to do this. First, attack the consent doctrine itself. Basically, make an argument that constitutional rights cannot be waived. Say that even if done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently rights cannot be waived. This argument has no chance. However, if it sounds good then contact your representative to pass an amendment. At first blush it sounds good, but I'd like to know more about the overall ramifications before pushing it.
Your second line of attack is arguing that purchasing a ticket and arriving at the airport does not meet the proper standard. Better than the first option, but still a tough row to hoe. The voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently standard is objective. That means the court looks at affirmative steps that constitute consent. Knowing you may be searched you search for a ticket, buy a ticket, register an account, input credit card information, click check boxes affirming you know about the possibility of search, you ultimately buy your ticket, arrive at the airport, check in with the airlines, and then head to the security check point. These are all affirmative steps. At any point you could have revoked. Compare with a Miranda waiver. Police put a piece of paper in front of you, you read it, then sign. You must differentiate the affirmative steps for the Miranda waiver with buying a ticket. I don't see how this can be done. There is much more pressure to comply in front of police than in front of your computer.
Bottom line, separating consent doctrine as it applies to TSA from other law enforcement or government agencies is almost impossible, and invalidating global consent doctrine is a non-starter.
However, just because you have consented to a search does not mean it can be performed in any manner. It must be done in a proper method.
Improper method:
This issue relates to the claims that TSA searches are "groping," "sexual molestation," or any other criminal charge. First, TSA agents do not have government immunity from these charges. Since they are outside the framework of their job they cannot be immunized. Second, proper TSA pat downs are not criminal acts. TSA pat downs are modeled after other government agency or law enforcement pat downs (the AIT and backscatter machines follow similar issues. Though the backscatter, if proven harmful, would be moved to its own
TSA/DHS will argue that genetics, dna and rna blood and tissue samples can indentify terriorists.
Their, undisclosed and untested or proven "science" they will argue proves their conclusion.
They will demand and President Obama will execute through executive order the blood sampling of
any and all USA travelers at all USA airports.
Welcome to Brazil
--//
Terrific, this adds another weapon to the arsenal of those opposed to the scanners.
- Comment loudly in such forums to make the opinion apparent.
- Work around the devices by using alternative transport.
- Write to your representatives. If enough noise is made, perhaps someone will use that as a capaign platform, draw more attention to it.
- Agree to the pat down. No radiation is safer than little radiation, and the longer the job takes for the TSA, the more inconvenient it will be for the airport officials and airlines. If the airlines think the scanners will impact their sales, they'll lobby to have them removed or replaced by something else.
But above all, do not abuse the TSA operatives. They probably are no more eager to do this that you are and being mean to them will only sour their mood and make the overall experience for others less pleasant.
After I saw top rated articles not make it to the front page, and crap-rated articles repeatedly get selected, I realized that the firehose is no more than a convenient fiction. It isn't worth spending time on; doesn't do anything useful.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Actually, its not. The DHS lost, was found to have acted illegally by adopting the rule without public comment, and is forced to go through the regular public-comment rulemaking procedure (contrary to DHS's arguments in the case that they could not only implement the rule that they were using without public comment, but could in theory go further and adopt a rule requiring strip searching every single air traveler without such process.)
Its fairly typical for courts to return matters to lower courts of regulatory agency to follow the proper process without reversing the outcome when they find that a decision was flawed due to a procedural error, and go further only when if and when an outcome from the lower court or regulatory agency is challenged after having gone through the proper procedure.
Al Qaeda is going to try to smuggle weapons onto airplanes in the rectums of rouge TSA agents?
The only way to be sure we have a secure air transport system is to perform a cavity check on every TSA agent everyday they show up to work.
Spread the word.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
I don't understand the court's comments. I mean, I do from the standpoint that they are in DC and aren't reviewing this from a Constitutional standpoint but rather some kind of operational / "I don't want to go on record as being the guy who pulled the plug and then a terrors slips past." Frankly, this has already been decided in Terry v. Ohio. It clearly outlines the requirements for police (e.g. the government) to search a person vs. just "frisk" a person. It even outlines what defines a "frisk" which is why it is often referred to as a "Terry Frisk" within the law enforcement world. Simply put, there needs to be probable cause for the officer to search a person (the same as the groping and looking down your pants search done by the TSA.) Reasonable suspicion, e.g. "I think anyone of you could be a terrorist" doesn't qualify, and thus this is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. As is the scanner, as forcing anyone to show their nude person also (under several rulings) requires probable cause or the exceptions for entering a prison.
There is one major issue not in the favor of citizens though... the TSA (namely it's "agents") are security guards and not law enforcement. Thus they are not directly forced to behave by Terry v. Ohio, or for that matter anything else. And they do not have to reach for probable cause. But, they are agents of the government and therefore we the people are protected by our enumerated and inalienable rights. We just have to apparently point this out to the courts.
I too dislike the "we are just following orders" comments they give... like others, I apparently payed attention in history class and have seen what that attitude has lead to and frankly I doubt the human psyche has changed enough to prevent a relapse.
But I am all for refusing the back-scatter scanners and making them search my person if that is my only alternative because I have to fly somewhere. It slows them down, it slows down everything, and that is what will cause the pressure on the system. The morons going through the x-ray machine... well I guess in a few years they will learn that much like asbestos and cigarettes the government wasn't actually truthful in the damage caused by something. There is far too much evidence that their machines are harmful (most recently a large number of TSA agents reporting cancer.) It's an x-ray... I don't care how low power you set it... you weren't genetically designed to deal with it all the time. I fly several times a week, so I am not going to play in the the naked picture taking microwave generator thank you very much... both for privacy and health reasons. I love listening to the TSA agents tell people it's just like a sonogram and your cell phone is more dangerous. Really?! Maybe if you guys payed attention in high school and went on to collage you could get real jobs and stop trying to mesmerize the masses with your make believe science.
I'm personally waiting for the "anus bomber" or "laptop battery bomber" to attempt to strike. Either will shut down commercial air travel as probing people (well I know a few that might like it, but I digress) and not allowing laptops on aircraft will be the check-mate that is needed. The security theater reaction instituted by DHS and thus the TSA is their actual goal. terrorists don't even need to be successful... hell failing is actually more damaging in this case. The terrorists are winning by getting us to give up our freedoms. People, their goal is to destroy our way of life... not knock fling tin cans out of the air. They love police states where freedoms are restricted because people believe they are now safer... that's how they run things themselves. They don't need to be the ones in charge, but getting us to fall under their type of rule means they won, even if they no longer suck air in a cave with a love sheep as their only companion. They dislike freedom, they dislike private wealth, they dislike public education and free thought... I have never heard them say "man, I really hate airpla
takes erection pills.
goes to airport.
refuses body scanner.
has random person play with boner.
gets put on no fly list.
WIN!
Any TSA Agent that views the image produced by the scanner is looking at child porn, and as such is a pedophile and should be arrested as such.
Any TSA Agent that pats down a child is a child molester and should be arrested as such.
End of discussion, there is no argument you can use to refute these claims.
Think of the children, end the TSA.
Sounds good to me. Too many whiny Americans crying about a simple little security check.
I'm sorry, would you rather be blown up in a plane?
If you want to speed things up, allow passenger profiling. Oh that's right, other Americans
want to cry about how "discriminatory" that is.
What's the real problem? Cry babies.
Run a business? Refuse to serve them.
Know any personally? Tell them you can't hang out anymore until they take a respectable job such as prostitution or dealing drugs.
Encounter one casually on the street? Stop just short of assault in badgering them.
Have to actually fly? Hand every one of them that speaks to you the business card of a local headhunter.
That's not "shunning", that's persecution. If you've travelled by air and felt persecuted for losing your precious toothpaste or other liquids, then you have no idea what "persecution" means.
You know who else persecuted specific workers? (like bankers) Probably the same answer that parent was seeking with their question.
No, really... it does work both ways.
If you get right down to it, nobody "[has] to actually fly." Take a bus cross-country and see what this ideal (abolishment of airport security) looks like.
To those who support the idea proposed by parent: Your outrage is only equalled by your gullibility and sense of self-importance. None of those is truly material nor tangible, nor should be of any import to the general populous. Take a quick survivalist course and go naked for 24 hours in the bare wilderness to find out what is really important in the world.
There isn't one shred of data that these devices actually work, or that TSA's security practices have stopped anything. The TSA does not track anything, so there's no way for anyone to know what the hell the truth is. I suspect that the TSA has not stopped anything since 2001, it's been other agencies (FBI, CIA, etc) who have prevented attacks.
There's also the fact that driving is many times more dangerous than flying, yet flying gets the most "security" (not that I want a TSA pat-down before getting into my car, of course, but it just shows how useless they are).
By the way, the backscatter devices would NOT have detected Mr Underpants Bomber. Oh, and every policy the TSA has put in place has been after someone got through security (e.g. shoe bomber => take your shoes off). Security theater at it's finest. Now, who are the politicians who've gotten donations from Rapiscan et.al. and how do we make sure they're permanently removed from office?
Hrm... so by that argument:
There's no evidence that fences stop illegal immigrants; let's take those down.
I haven't seen any data to support how the War on Drugs in Central America is working, so let's stop that too.
The CIA must be taking down all the threats to National Security, so let's get rid of Coast Guard, Border Patrol and ICE.
Seriously!?
Yet, somehow you have the evidence that body-scanning is ineffective against an IED worn in the crotch area... how? Where is your evidence? Where is your data to support these unfounded claims?
BTW: The term "security theatre" is not to ridicule what happens in airport security, it's a term that ridicules those that would give those events penultimate importance. For instance, most of these comments are "security theatre at it's finest."
These infinitesimally self-important cries of "my rights are violated!" are but the whinings of children, especially to the terrorists.
Cite "the 4th" as much as you like, the true spirit of that right remains. For one person to say "your reasonable cause doesn't qualify" is as effective as telling the ocean to be quiet. You're boarding a sensitive and fragile mode of transportation with the lives of dozens, often hundreds of people at stake. That is your probable cause, right there.
As for your numbing ignorance of screening technology, you can be as paranoid as you want. Don't go near those cell towers! They emit x-rays too! Your microwave? Don't open that door within ten seconds after your coffee is heated! You'll get a dose of x-rays! Don't carry that car-clicker in your pocket! Don't you know it's irradiating you!? [/satire] Paranoia truly knows no boundaries... so where's your evidence to support your stance? Have you even seen the website? Don't you know there's two different body-scanners in use? Are you so afraid of being duped that you'll blissfully avoid viewing a government website? I got bad news; you've already been duped.
Were they calling for comment on the actual body scans, or on the policy of scanning?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
it actually springs from "administrative searches" and "implied consent". see the long line of case history. its a fucking joke.
I was reading an article today about it, 5.2 million passengers per day which is double the total number of airline travelers and they manage to keep it safe an efficient. They use a system of bomb sniffing dogs, live cameras, armed personnel (everywhere, on the trains, in the terminal, and above ground), and they train their guys to be on the lookout for odd behavior and they have random bag searches. I think there are something like 600+ terminals and they are all safe, why can't the TSA learn from NYPD?
So I get "randomly" selected to go through the body scanner...fine, whatever, I have nothing to hide. When I exit, I was then subjected to a full-on body search, nut-tugging and all.....I thought it was supposed to only be one or the other? If one chooses not to go through the scanner they would then be subjected to just the physical body search....had I known I was gonna get groped I would have just chosen that option to begin with and saved my body from the exposure of the xrays...Has anybody else heard of this? I could understand if they had probable cause after viewing something from the machine, but obviously there was nothing on me so in no way should they have had probable cause